This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Assessment of Shelter Programmes in Andhra Pradesh
Darshini Mahadevia Trishna Gogoi
Centre for Urban Equity
(An NRC for Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India) CEPT University
Working Paper -12
Assessment of Shelter Programmes in Andhra Pradesh
Darshini Mahadevia1 Trishna Gogoi2
Centre for Urban Equity
(An NRC for Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India) CEPT University
Acknowledgement Research is funded by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA), as an activity of the National Resource Centre of the MoHUPA. CEPT University is a designated NRC of the MoHUPA and Centre for Urban Equity (CUE) acts as CEPT NRC. This research was funded for the year 2009-2010. Authors are grateful to MoHUPA for this research funding. Authors would also like to acknowledge contribution of Ms. N. Vijaya Kumari for the field work in Andhra Pradesh. Our gratitude to the officials of the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Ltd. for making the data available to us. Last but not the least, our gratitude to the people who responded to our survey and made this research possible.
Disclaimer The comments and opinions in this paper are of the authors and not of the Centre of Urban Equity or CEPT University.
1 Shelter Security: the Policy Concern in India ...........................................................1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.4 1.5 2 Introduction .......................................................................................................1 Shelter Security and Role of State.......................................................................4 Indian state and policies for shelter provision ....................................................5 Current urban housing scenario in India ..........................................................5 The Housing policy scenario in India ...............................................................7 Introduction to research locales .......................................................................11 Methodology ....................................................................................................12
Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojna (VAMBAY) ......................................................... 14 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.3 Project locales ..................................................................................................15 Status of case-study sites: VAMBAY ..................................................................16 Availability of basic services ..........................................................................16 Availability of Physical and Social infrastructure............................................17 Quality of housing .........................................................................................18 Expenditure Pattern ......................................................................................19 VAMBAY performance in Andhra Pradesh ........................................................20
Rajiv Gruha Kalpa (RGK) ....................................................................................... 23 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 Project locales ..................................................................................................23 Status of case-study site: RGK...........................................................................24 Availability of Basic Services ..........................................................................24 Availability of Physical Infrastructure ............................................................25 Availability of Social Infrastructure ................................................................25 Housing Quality ............................................................................................25 Expenditure pattern ......................................................................................26 Rajiv Gruha Kalpa performance in Andhra Pradesh .......................................27
Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) ........................ 28
4.1 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.3 5
Project locales ..................................................................................................29 Status of case-study sites: IHSDP ......................................................................30 Availability of Basic Services ..........................................................................30 Availability of Physical and Social Infrastructure ...........................................30 Quality of Housing ........................................................................................31 Expenditure pattern ......................................................................................32 IHSDP performance in Andhra Pradesh.............................................................33
Critical Assessment on the housing programmes in Andhra Pradesh ................... 34 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Post-project situation .......................................................................................35 Impact of rehabilitation ....................................................................................35 Absence of Community Participation ................................................................36 Summing up .....................................................................................................36
....... 32 Figure 4-2: Site plan for Nalgonda ... 19 Figure 3-1: RGK Housing in Mamillaguda and Schematic plan* ............. 18 Table 9: Change in Average Expenditure for Different Items... 26 Figure 4-1: Relocated IHSDP housing in Mamillaguda ................................................................. 33 Figure 2-1: VAMBAY Housing.......................... Nandanavanam ............................................................. 17 Table 7: Availability of Physical Infrastructure (hh in %) ................6 Table 3: Shelter Programmes and their Coverage.. NTR Nagar ............................................ NTR Nagar .................................................. 19 Table 10: Distance travelled to work-place (% of hh)........................................ 2007 estimates ... 15 Table 6: Availability of Basic Services (% of hh) ............ 20 Table 12: Coverage of households by Basic Services under RGK Scheme (% of hh) ......................................................................................................... 13 Table 4: Sample Selection for Current Research ..................................................... Andhra Pradesh .......................................................................................... IHSDP (% of hh) ..................................................................................... 32 Boxes Box 1: VAMBAY in the News……………………………………………………………………………21 Box 2: Rajiv Gruha Kalpa in the News……………………………………………………………………27 ......................................................................... 27 Table 16: Availability of Basic services.6 Table 2: Status Update of BSUP and IHSDP (as on September 2010) .....Table 1: Housing Shortage as per Socio-Economic Groups.................... Nandanavanam and Schematic design of Unit* . 24 Table 13: Coverage of Households by Physical Infrastructure (% of hh) ............................... 20 Table 11: Change in the Average Expenditure on Select Items........................... 13 Table 5: Status of VAMBAY in Andhra Pradesh ..... 26 Table 15: Distance to be travelled to the City Centre (% of hh) ......................................... 17 Table 8: Status of Housing Structure (hh%) ......... 25 Table 14: Change in Average Expenditure per Household .................................................................................. 30 Table 17: Coverage of Households by Physical Infrastructure (% of hh) ..................... 31 Table 18: Change in the Expenditure Pattern after In-Situ Development .............................................................................
the policies have to emanate also from the international treaties on human rights. 1948 . …. It is important not only for human well-being but also for the economic benefits to the household and the nation. colour. Rather. which equates it with. Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). In striving to achieve this objective. Housing is considered as a basic human right in the international policy making and UN treaties. national or social origin or other cause. cultural. climatic. the Committee believes that it is nevertheless possible to identify certain aspects of the right that must be taken into account for 1 . education.1 Introduction Housing is a primordial human need. iii) General Comment of the Committee on Economic.” The Habitat Conference declarations set the tone for domestic policies. training and social security without any discrimination of race. peace and dignity. language. India is a signatory to the following treaties: i) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But. with importance next only to food and clothes. and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. ideology. ecological and other factors. clothing and housing. economic. ii) International Covenant on Economic. religion. which declared: “The improvement of the quality of life of human beings is the first and most important objective of every human settlement policy.This was the first international instrument that recognised that the right to adequate housing is an important component of the right to an adequate standard of living. the right to housing should not be interpreted in a narrow or restrictive sense. beginning with the satisfaction of the basic needs of food. Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) The CESCR has provided a holistic understanding of housing through its General Comments: “In the committee’s view. dignity and social justice.1 Shelter Security: the Policy Concern in India 1. shelter. Habitat I Conference was held for the first time in 1976 at Vancouver. employment. for example. in a frame of freedom. it should be seen as the right to live somewhere in security. 1996 – This act reaffirms and elaborates the right to adequate housing because adequate standard of living includes adequate food. the shelter provided by merely having a roof over one’s head or views shelter exclusively as a commodity. sex. While adequacy is determined in part by social. clean water. priority must be given to the needs of 3 the most disadvantaged people. This being recognised. These policies must facilitate the rapid and continuous improvement in the quality of life of all people. health. to which India has been a signatory.
held in Rio de Janeiro. notably in the enjoyment of the right to own property and the right to housing. 1986. at the national level. food. • All countries should adopt and/or strengthen national shelter strategies.” viii) Agenda 21 (UNCED. facilities and infrastructure. to facilitate their access to land. all necessary measures for the realisation of the right to development and shall ensure. social and economic well-being. The aspects covered by this agenda are: • Safe and healthy shelter is essential to a person’s physical. colour. in June 1992. support the shelter efforts of the urban and the rural poor. finance and low-cost building material. • Provision of housing should be a fundamental part of national and international action. Brazil. psychological. Habitability. Availability of services. health services. Affordability. as appropriate. on the principles and recommendations contained in the Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000. without distinction as to race.this purpose in any particular context. inter alia. 1992) – This was adopted at the UN World Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). equality of opportunity for all in their access to basic resources. to equality before the law. materials. vii) The Declaration on the Right to Development (1986) – This was adopted by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 41/128 on December 4. employment and the fair distribution of income. They include the following seven core elements to determine the adequacy of housing: • • • • • • • Legal security of tenure. Location. including legal protection against forced evictions. the unemployed and the no-income group by adopting and/or adapting existing codes and regulations. with targets based. education. housing. or national or ethnic origin. and Cultural adequacy”4 iv) Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination – Article 5 of the Convention obliges State parties to undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone. • All countries should. … Appropriate economic and social reforms should be carried out with the view to eradicating all social injustices. Accessibility for disadvantaged groups. as appropriate. • People should be protected by law against unfair eviction from their homes or land. under declares: “States should undertake. 2 .
all these resulting in coming out of poverty and transforming their lives (Mahadevia 2010). low-income urban dwellers and the rural poor. and not through privatisation as is being sought to be done now. developing countries around the world have been reformulating their housing policies. Two targets within this goal. as provided for in international instruments”. gender equality and housing. and now with the purpose of meeting the targets of the MDGs. 39). The issue of shelter security has been covered also in the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Shelter security efforts globally are aimed at reducing poverty and inequality. large-scale housing programme has been launched. (ii) addressing at the least water and sanitation needs immediately. Hasan et al (2005) suggest that meeting of the MDGs would mean (i) doing urban development in another way than has been done till now. (iii) addressing land availability for the poor through either tenure regularisation or through creation of new housing for the low income groups and (iv) financing alternatives for the slum dwellers. 1996. 8) and the Habitat Agenda (para. health care. The Istanbul Declaration (para. 20025). especially indigenous people. focussing on issues of livelihood. Shelter security is a means for the urban poor to improve their living conditions. on account of the first ever national urban renewal mission named Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) in 2005. The goal 7 of the MDGs is about ensuring environmental sustainability.• • Countries should promote the regularisation and upgrading of informal settlements and urban slums as an expedient measure and pragmatic solution to the urban shelter deficit. local communities. 2001. etc. promoted in the UNHABITAT declarations (1976. Goal 1 of the MDGs is about eradication of extreme poverty and hunger and the target is halving the proportion of people whose income is less than US$ 1 a day. either of the national government. such as Valmiki Ambedkar Awaas Yojana 3 . and for the first time. “reaffirmed the commitment to the full and progressive realisation of the right to adequate housing. In India also. In keeping with the global discussions on ‘housing as a human right’. States should establish appropriate forms of land tenure. target 10 of halving the proportion of population without safe water and basic sanitation and target 11 of significant improvement in the lives of at the least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020 are directly related to improvement of living conditions of the slum dwellers and the urban poor. women. The housing component of the mission is the Basic Services for the Urban Poor (BSUP) for the mission cities and Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) for the non-mission cities. which provide security of tenure for all land users. both have. All the existing public housing programmes for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) or Low Income Groups (LIG). in other words t change the urban development paradigm. which in turn has potential to improve their health and by that employment and incomes.
2010. realised that the ongoing efforts were too fragmented and that probably not reaching the target population on account of non-participation of the slum dwelling communities. both in capitalist as well as socialist countries. the countries went ahead with implementing the policy package under the conditions of Structural Adjustment Programme. at the same time. wherever they existed. 1. making finance available and bringing in the private sector to construct housing. The state can implement uniform standards of social security across all groups. In India. the national government.(VAMBAY) or the state level programmes. it enables citizens across income. which meant the state withdrew from the provisioning of housing and shifting to just facilitating its households to access shelter/ housing through deregulating land (with the assumption that this would increase the supply of land). looking at the preliminary results coming from their implementation. be it in housing or any other sector. Global experience. UN’s MDGs). It is in this context that this paper takes a critical look at the public housing provisions by the government in Andhra Pradesh and analyse the impact of housing programmes on the beneficiary-communities through assessment of pre and post-project conditions. the BSUP and IHSDP were under implementation. The preliminary reports also suggest that the new housing sites have been located outside the city creating a general overall problem of accessibility for those allotted the new BSUP housing. But. non-formal agencies (UNRISD 2010). have been subsumed under the BSUP and IHSDP.2 Shelter Security and Role of State Shelter security is a state responsibility. the public agencies gradually withdrew from providing public housing and begun to implement shelter upgradation and sites and services programmes (Mahadevia 2002). As mentioned. which is not possible for private. the early reports about implementation of BSUP indicated that there was total lack of community participation and by that neglect of social aspects of housing in the programme. While. In some cities in Gujarat. 2006. the dwelling units constructed under the BSUP programme were being used for the purpose of rehabilitating those displaced by city-level infrastructure programmes (For Ahmedabad see Our Inclusive Ahmedabad 2010 and for Surat see Mahadevia and Shah 2010). UNRISD. There is a need to assess the achievements of the past public housing programmes and now the BSUP and the IHSDP. 4 .and social-groups to become independent of the market-forces. has shown that when the state delivers social security. The 1980s saw the developing countries recognising ‘housing as a basic and merit good and a prominent element of social security’ (Mahadeva. wherever implemented. The BSUP as a result has become a programme of rehabilitation rather than creating housing stock for the slum dwellers and the urban poor on new sites. The national government therefore is in the process of launching a national level urban housing programme named the Rajiv Awaas Yojana (RAY).
with “Inclusive Growth” has brought back focus to housing and shelter security in urban India. Sivam et el. Their final estimate is a housing shortage of 24. namely. Evidence is the failure of popular approaches to poverty-reduction. Millennium Development Goals (MDG). of which the 5 . ironically.30 million urban households. these are dwelling units which are 40-80 years old and require re-building or maintenance. the acceptable housing units are 58. Non-state and private agencies cannot substitute state’s role in social security provision and public action. Moreover.1 Current urban housing scenario in India The MoHUPA in 2007 commissioned a Working Group on Urban Housing6 with a focus on Slums to analyse housing situation in the 11th Five Year Plan period. with active participation from all stakeholders. The failure to bridge the gap between vision of efficiency and equity as well as final implementation permeates all public housing schemes. communities. with extension of privatization into healthcare. This estimate has been arrived thus. insurance. (Esser 2009. rather than improving the macro-policy scenario and governance as a whole as is expected of welfare states. 2010). 1.3. etc. through the design and scope of public interventions (UNRISD 2010. The various declarations on housing and human settlement (HABITAT I. For an estimated 66. social welfare and social security was left to market-forces. One important dimension of housing shortage is congested living. Clemens and Moss. but across the world. HABITAT II. private sector. Further. India’s average family size is 5. the state policy is seen to be relegated to just providing for the neediest in the times of crisis.67 million housing units. from which benefits would trickle down to all sections of the society.1 (as per Census 2001). and indirectly. not only in India. 1976. India’s urban housing scenario and current policies are discussed in the next section. Mahadeva 2006. the “Inclusive Growth” agenda is moored within the neo-liberal macro paradigm. 2005). education and housing (UNRISD.3 Indian state and policies for shelter provision 1.39 million units were considered to be obsolete. Market-based reforms brought about by liberalization were expected to bring efficient market systems. through various subsidies and regulations. It is only the state which can create conditions for other stakeholders’ involvement in the development sector – directly. which is defined as atleast one married couple in the house not having a separate room to live in. 2001). etc. estimated 2.83 million. The 11th Five Year Plan of India. Providing respite to target-groups became an accepted measure of public action and thus created an exclusionary environment even within the targeted groups.71 million (as in 2007) in the urban sector. local authorities. 1996) have reiterated the importance of an integrated housing market. NGOs. Nearly 9. IMF and World Bank’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. The report estimated such congested urban housing to be nearly 12. including.Within the neo-liberal policy agenda. leading to vacillation in the role of the state in provision of housing.78 million existing housing units are semi-pucca or kutcha. However.
the MoHUPA’s status of these projects has been as given in Table 2. in Mn) No.pdf.950 26. JNNURM’s second sub-mission on housing.71 million units at the beginning of the 11th Five Year Plan (2007) and reaching 26. Thus. for which another Rs. in case there is no intervention.71 Source: MoHUPA 2010 Table 2: Status Update of BSUP and IHSDP (as on September 2010) Indicators Budget allocation (Rs.029 Total 2.40 million units. accessed on 1 December 2010 The funding required to meet the total housing shortage at the beginning of the 11 th plan period (which is 2007) had been estimated at Rs. All these add up to 24.247 IHSDP 68.846.34).in/jnnurm_hupa/jnnurm/DMU_REPORT_JNNURM.503 244. 2.611 340.276 Requirement as per MoHUPA estimates 14.141.563.540.kutcha (2. The BSUP is meant for the JnNURM’s mission cities and IHSDP for the non-mission cities.26 million units requirement will arise during the plan period. only 10 per cent of Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) households and 2 per cent Low Income Groups (LIG) households live in pucca housing (pp 34). The report has estimated that the nearly 98 per cent of High Income Groups (HIG) and 92 per cent of Middle Income Groups (MIG) households have pucca housing units.13 per cent of all kutcha houses are occupied by EWS households. total new housing stock created has been only 3. jnnurmmis.78 2. 1.31. in contrast. has been addressing the housing and infrastructure requirements of the slum dwellers in India.000 - Source: www.39 per cent by LIG households (pp.89 0. 6 . of houses sanctioned (units) No.471.108 96. The report stated that nearly 88.18 million) needs to be upgraded. Table 2 clearly indicates the sluggish pace of the current programmes to reach the required goals.283.028. it is the EWS and LIG sections of the society who would require housing supply as public housing from the government. Table 1: Housing Shortage as per Socio-Economic Groups.231 million would be required.60 1.50 1. while 11.53. Another 7.71.10 512.04 24.53 million at the end of the period (2012). 2007 estimates Socio-economic category EWS LIG MIG HIG Total Housing shortage in 2007 (figs in mn) 21.950 million. As of September 2010.nic. Since 2005. of houses completed (units) BSUP 163. while the HIG and MIG can be serviced by the open markets. As per September 2010. Basic Services for the Urban Poor (BSUP) and Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP).
In place. and increase in formal sector financial flows to the housing sector. The UBSP was discontinued in 1997. Relaxations of building bye-laws and zoning regulations have been introduced by taking minimum penalty and granting indemnity to the violators of these regulations. As per the Constitution of India. Besides repealing ULCR Act. 1. It indicates that in the next 2 years. In shelter programmes. In Mumbai. the 1987 draft becoming a full policy and then National Housing and Habitat Policy of 1998. and the country decided to liberalize the economy from 1991. 12. if India is to meet the urban housing targets. Both have emphasised increasing the supply of urban housing and land.33 to 2. In support of that. Post-1991 period has seen a landmark paradigm change in the country’s development policy approach. After economic reforms two housing policies were framed but were left in the draft stage. it proposed to increase the coverage of credit for housing through links of formal and informal institutions. Even the budget allocation at Rs. Lastly.5 (Mahadevia 1998). ‘right to shelter’ is included in the basket of rights provided in Article 21 in the ‘Right to life’. public-private partnerships for increasing land supply. NGOs and community organisations.31 million is way short of the estimated requirement of Rs. The Eighth Plan suggests that housing should be facilitated through removal in legal bottlenecks in land and housing supply. For example.71 million. But. in Mumbai. housing sector has seen critical shortages in housing stock for both vulnerable and middle-income groups as well as a highly unregulated overall housing market. Rs.3.2 The Housing policy scenario in India Unlike other east and south-east Asian economies. These were the National Housing Policy (NHP) of 1992. 14. India was not deeply impacted by the Asian crisis of 1997-1998. Yet.4 million will be required to be spent. the Urban Basic Services was converted into Urban Basic Services for the Poor (UBSP) in 1992.2. namely. These are introduced through changes in Development Control Regulations (DCRs) in some cities. the postliberalization reforms introduced the provision of housing finance and structured housing market (UNRISD 2010). the new DCRs permit increase of Floor Space Index (FSI8) from 1. other land deregulations have come. National 7 . In the housing sector. mainly by taking care of the supply side factors. It also implored increasing private sector participation in housing sector. Other policy changes with regards to land are introduction of new land management practices. the economic crises of the late 1980s affected India.thereby lagging behind 23 million units more to meet the 11th Plan period deadline. Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation (ULCR) Act was repealed in 1999. especially for the development of metropolitan fringe areas. a new concept of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR7) has been introduced to make land accessible for public purposes in those parts of the city that do not have many vacant lands and where the land prices are high.
Expectedly. the Prime Minister of India announced a first-ever subsidy based housing scheme for the urban slum dwellers worth Rs. as was the case with regards to the public housing till now but also as organisers and managers of the projects. as already mentioned earlier.4 million (4 lakhs) of additional housing for the poor were to be constructed by HUDCO every year. bringing in the land and finance and also keeping up high rate of construction while the government would facilitate through various incentives. While the JNNURM was being implemented. On the Independence Day on 2001. Half the funds were envisaged to come from the yearly subsidy and another half from the Tenth Five Year Plan as loan. especially in the wake of expected increased rate of urbanisation. this Policy seeks to emphasize appropriate fiscal concessions for housing and infrastructure. mainly the private sector developers. which has a sub-mission of BSUP. “This Policy seeks to assist the poorest of poor who cannot afford to pay the entire price of a house by providing them access to reasonably good housing on rental and ownership basis with suitable subsidization. There is 8 . it states that it would support development of “suitable fiscal concessions in collaboration with the Ministry of Finance for promotion of housing and urban infrastructure with special focus on EWS/LIG beneficiaries combined with a monitoring mechanism for effective targeting. 2. The policy is incentivising the these private players to come into this low value low profit margin market to address the severe housing shortages for the urban poor. IHSDP programme is under implementation. the national government adopted a National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy (NUHHP). in 2007. The core of the policy is provision of “Affordable Housing For All” and increase in supply of the same through bringing more players into the process. 20 billion) and named it VAMBAY. This also was discontinued subsequently and replaced by Valmiki Ambedkar Awaas Yojana (VAMBAY). It also seeks to attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in areas like integrated development of housing and new township development. In 2005. the Policy seeks to develop innovative financial instruments like development of Mortgage Backed Securitization Market (RMBS) and Secondary Mortgage Market. The Policy seeks to enhance the supply of houses especially for the disadvantaged. duly supplemented by basic services.” As far as finance is concerned.000 crores (Rs. For example. A component of this scheme was a new sanitation programme called Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan aimed at providing toilet facilities in the slums to be maintained by the slum dwellers themselves. The figures of the achievements under the two programmes are already presented earlier. Most importantly. the national government came up with its first major urban development programme named the JNNURM. For the non-mission cities. The private sector would not be engaged solely as the construction contractors. atleast 0.Slum Development Programme (NSDP) was launched in 1996.
Some important ones. have been suggested. that are not already stated above are listed here: i) ii) iii) Land assembly. The states are expected to ensure development of new townships and Special Economic Zones (SEZs). For increasing land supply. There is a great stress in the policy on Public Private Partnership (PPP). even for the low income households. The NHB will act as a refinance institution for the housing sector. development and disposal will be encouraged both in the public and private sectors. who would. ensure suitable flow of financial resources to potential EWS/LIG beneficiaries as well as undertake viability gap funding of large housing and habitat development projects. 9 iv) v) . through encouraging legal reforms at the state government level and bringing about national level policy changes. The role of the central government is envisaged as one of being a facilitator. bring about changes in legal and regulatory framework. land management tools such as the TDR and increase in FSI/ FAR. The feasibility of a National Shelter Fund to be set up under the control of the National Housing Bank for providing subsidy support to EWS/LIG housing would be examined in consultation with Ministry of Finance. The role of the state government is envisaged as that of a direct facilitator. promote PPP. act as facilitator for increasing housing supply by ensuring multiple partners coming in. The Policy lays out the role of central government. The policy also lays stress on creation of new housing. in coordination with the local government prepare state level housing and habitat policy. where new housing stock would be created. The policy is in a way in tune with the privatisation philosophy of the JNNURM. In essence. Specific areas of Action are also given in the Policy.also emphasis on use of appropriate technology for reducing the cost of construction. The policy therefore emphasises on a strong role of the private sector in creating new housing for the urban poor. Special financial and spatial incentives would be developed for inner-city slum redevelopment schemes. the state government and the local government in this endeavour. The policy is based on the role of the government to be an enabler and a regulator and not a doer. and promote in-situ upgradation of existing slums. it envisages that the demand for affordable housing is so large that finance of the tune mentioned earlier in the paper would be required and for which new sources would have to be tapped. encourage all community level efforts of increasing housing supply. Private Sector will be allowed to assemble a reasonable size of land in consonance with the Master Plan/Development Plan of each city/town. States/UTs will be advised to develop 10 years perspective Housing Plans with emphasis on EWS and LIG sectors.
Land pooling and sharing arrangements to be encouraged in order to facilitate land development and improvement of basic amenities in slums. affordable housing and basic services to the urban poor. India has tried to promote social protection and equity in tandem with economic development throughout all the national plans. to be encouraged with cross subsidization and special incentives. Companies and Employers will be encouraged to invest in the construction of rental housing for their employees. Adequate regulation of MFIs would be undertaken to ensure that MFIs do not burden the poor by charging usurious interest rates and their operations are kept transparent. given that the thrust of the ministry is to minimize rehabilitation: i) To carry forward the initiatives taken up under the JNNURM. urban poverty as a concern in national planning found its roots in the Sixth Five Year Plan (1980-1985) ¬ where for the first time the centrally-sponsored programme. There are large number of action areas suggested for slum improvement and upgradation. Legal measures suggested are in tune with the provisions of the JNNURM. NGOs and Self-Help Groups (SHGs) to be involved in partnership with the private sector. HFIs and Banks for rental housing. To carefully consider the release of TDRs and additional FAR for accelerating private investment in provision of shelter to the poor. special efforts will be made to ensure fast and reliable transportation to work sites. Only in cases. where relocation is necessary on account of severe water pollution. In this regard. suitable mechanisms would be evolved to develop simplified norms for prudential rating and providing finance to MFIs. such as slum improvement as well as in-situ slum rehabilitation along with provision of security of tenure. Micro-Finance Institutions (MFIs) would be promoted at State level to expedite the flow of finance to urban poor. Inner-city slum redevelopment programmes for creating a better environment. safety problems on account of proximity to rail track or other critical concerns relocation of slum dwellers will be undertaken. However. Rental housing provides a viable alternative option to the home seekers and the house providers alike. CBOs. Also. In such cases. Environmental Improvement of Urban Slums (EIUS) was established to improve slum environment and for site and services 10 . Incentives are to be provided for encouraging lendings by financial institutions. ii) iii) iv) v) vi) Like most other developing countries.vi) vii) viii) ix) The Central and State/UT Governments would develop a special package of incentives for in-situ slum upgradation. To ensure that the shelter provision for the poor is near their present work place and that non-transferable land tenure rights are provided to them for atleast a period of 10-15 years.
thus the schemes already completed can be studied through a critical assessment of pre and post housing conditions of the scheme occupants. the push towards slum development and poverty alleviation programmes. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) has indicated that there are 1. (APSHCL). which is putting forward the policy of giving property rights or tenure guarantee to the slum dwellers as a critical element in shelter security.4 Introduction to research locales Our research is focussed on assessing public housing programmes for the poor. While undertaking this research on assessment of the BSUP of the JNNURM. housing is still being treated as a commodity which is evident from the fact that the Government has kept a caveat in the RAY guidelines that states can take the RAY scheme provided lands.surveys. when it deems fit. focussing on the JNNURM housing schemes currently being implemented across the country. Post 1990s. 1.projects in several cities. etc. saw an upsurge in tandem with India’s exponentially growing urbanization. in which the non-notified slums have higher density of population. and in case a slum has to be rehabilitated. VAMBAY. In Andhra Pradesh (AP). we decided to also assess other urban housing programmes as well to get a comprehensive understanding of the efficacy of public housing programmes in the urban areas of the state. Formed post-tsunami in 1979. APSHCL has been mandated with numerous housing programmes like INDIRAMMA in 1983. Added to this policy scenario is the more recent Rajiv Awaas Yojana (RAY) 2009. the slum population is 38 per cent of the total urban population (MoHUPA. Rajiv Gruha Kalpa (RGK). the changes being cosmetic in nature. it should be within the same ward. On the whole. Another point being emphasised in RAY discussions is the insitu development of slums. AP is the first Indian state to establish an organisation to work exclusively towards ‘housing for all’ – the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Ltd. are being implemented by the APSHCL. the AP state government has implemented a slew of urban improvement programmes 11 . the BSUP. nearly 57 per cent of the slums are on private lands of which almost 80 per cent slums date back more than 20 years (Adusumili 2001). community participation in . Indira Awas Yojna 2002-03 and Urban Permanent Housing 2006. However. We decided to select Andhra Pradesh as our research locale keeping in mind that the state has long established welfare traditions and also a long history of urban public housing programmes. albeit. Studies on-going for appropriate guidelines to implement this policy have thrown up critical issues like. etc.342 slums within Hyderabad. IHSDP.. has seen a shift towards decentralization and inclusive planning (Mathur 2009). provision of basic services and infrastructure. Again. financial allocations. choice of land tenure or development model. 2010). Currently. The urban governance framework encompassing institutions. Public housing at such a large scale has never been implemented in India.
over the years – Slum Clearance Scheme.000 ‘pattas’ (land tenure) and upgraded 12. and also brings out a comparative analysis of different programmes to learn from them. The detailed assessment includes documenting the current stage of implementation of the scheme in different locations in the state. It has facilitated the government to acquire land where the slums were located and to carry our slum improvement activities. status of basic services and infrastructure provision and the concerns for rehabilitation. conducting the Focussed Group Discussions (FGDs) with the beneficiaries and then canvassing structured questionnaire survey to assess the success of the programme. Environmental Improvement Scheme. and successfully implemented many programmes for urban poor. 1956. This Act along with the popular Urban Community Development Programme (UCD) delivered nearly 20. Thus Andhra Pradesh has since long had established welfare measures. The merit of this research is that it brings on record such an analysis. as well as the changes in their expenditure pattern with the change in their housing conditions is the objective of the study. Housing Scheme for Urban Poor. We selected the VAMBAY project (VAMBAY has been subsumed with IHSDP currently). Based on the coverage of these programmes and also their stage of implementation. CGG 2009) The objective of this research is to assess the impact of the housing programmes for poor in urban areas. The structured questionnaire survey assesses whether there has been reported gentrification of the schemes. The legislation supporting housing programmes in the state is the AP Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act. which let slum dwellers and land owners to use the privately owned land as per a legal land sharing agreement. Slum Improvement Programme. 12 . Another measure promoting welfare action was the ‘land sharing’ concept initiated in 1985.5 Methodology The core concern of this research is to understand the status of public housing projects in Andhra Pradesh. the Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) and Rajiv Gruha Kalpa (former housing programme now converged with the INDIRAMMA) schemes for detailed assessment. we had selected a few programmes for detailed assessment.000. Research on the resultant changes brought about in the physical quality of life of slum dwellers. 1. (Adusumilli 2001. Integrated Urban Development Programme. This study has obtained data on the beneficiaries’ living conditions before and after the housing projects. Hyderabad Slum Improvement Project and the Urban Community Development Programme. Table 3 gives the coverage of the ongoing shelter programmes in the state in the middle of 2009.
PJR Nagar (P. In short. Kukatpalli Charlapally Mamillaguda Pangal (in-situ development) Mamillaguda (relocation) Dwelling Units completed 328 700 1.200 192 184 194 Sample 67 72 5 49 54 23 For all other programmes. Rangareddy. East Godavari. in Sikh Nagar (700 hh) all the residents belong to the Sikh community. Table 4: Sample Selection for Current Research Programme VAMBAY BSUP Rajiv Gruha Kalpa IHSDP City Hyderabad Hyderabad` Nalgonda Nalgonda Site NTR Nagar. Chittoor. Nalgonda. Since the NTR Nagar site is of mixed allotment. we had visited all large housing sites in the cities selected for the research. Yellamabanda Nandanavanam. two VAMBAY housing colonies have been taken up for assessment – NTR Nagar in Yellamabanda and Nandanavanam in Kukatpalli. In Hyderabad. But. Nizamabad. we have surveyed only the households who had occupied the new housing. Vishakhapatnam. Vijaywada. In PJR Nagar (1. Khammam. Srikakulum. Janardhan Reddy) and Sikh Nagar. all the residents are rehabilitees from Jubilee hills. To be able to do so. For BSUP. Guntoor. the site was visited and general information was collected from officials – not included in detailed discussions in this paper BSUP Hyderabad.000 hh). and NTR Nagar (700 hh) is mixed colony of rehabilitees from various locations of the city as well as of those who had applied for new housing to the APHSLC. this site has been selected as a sample for the study. We will like to put on record that Andhra Pradesh was reeling under severe floods in the period of our survey.400 households (hh) – NTR Nagar (Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao Nagar). Warangal All districts Cities selected for assessment Hyderabad Nalgonda Nalgonda Hyderabad (not occupied at the time of survey). Vishakhapatnam Other municipal corporations Anantpur. But.Table 3: Shelter Programmes and their Coverage. we selected Hyderabad for our study. Karimnagar. Mehbubnagar. assessment of VAMBAY is based on sample drawn from NTR Nagar of Yellamabanda and Nandanavanam (Table 4). Vijaywada Of the municipal corporations where VAMBAY was implemented. Andhra Pradesh Scheme VAMBAY Rajiv Gruh Kalpa IHSDP Cities covered Hyderabad. we selected Hyderabad. Vishkhapatnam. Kurnool. The slums were selected on the following basis: the Yellamabanda slum cluster has three slums with about 2. Nadanavanam was selected as this site is large with 328 households. here we found that only 5 13 .
Thus. Thus. Nearly. Comparative analysis of all the housing programmes has been carried out. 20 per cent of the 14 . VAMBAY envisages redevelopment of existing slums and also relocation of slums. Chaitanyanagar. For IHSDP also. The living conditions assessed include housing condition. etc. impacts the expenses of a household. VAMBAY in Andhra Pradesh has been subsumed under it. Sri Krishnanagar and Pangal and we have selected the last one (Table 4). We selected Nalgonda for assessing Rajiv Gruha Kalpa (RGK). one which is a relocation site where 194 units have been constructed and two. The former site is at Mamillaguda and the latter at Pangal. along with other existing programmes such as National Slum Development Programme (NSDP) and Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rojgar Yojna (SJSRY) to ensure an integrated provision of drinking water. living environment. At Pangal there are three settlements. We selected all 49 households for our survey.. workplace. community centre (markets). 2 Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojna (VAMBAY) Since the launch of BSUP under JNNURM in 2005. VAMBAY simultaneously had the component of community toilets under Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA) aimed at providing health services and an enabling urban environment. we selected Nalgonda. availability of basic services. assessing their current living conditions against their former housing (prior to shifting to a new public housing unit). size of the unit. access to social infrastructure and access to work. which is an in-situ development where 184 units have been constructed. IHSDP programme in Nalgonda has two sites. sanitation and drainage facilities along with housing. the current study is an attempt to analyze the coverage of beneficiaries under different components of the programme. distance to city centre. The main criteria for assessment are: Availability of basic services and infrastructure: All the housing schemes are efforts towards providing housing and basic infrastructure to all urban BPL families. Expenditure pattern: Availability of basic services and transportation. Housing quality: It is not enough to alone provide housing and environmental infrastructure – the construction materials. the household expenditure pattern is analysed to gauge the impact the housing programme has brought about for the communities. we could not undertake any survey here but held discussions with them. etc. In this light. The change in the expenses of a household is a direct indicator of the changes brought about by the housing conditions. where 196 houses were allotted but only 49 were occupied in Mamillaguda site.. should contribute towards better living standards.households had occupied the housing in 2009 when we had visited them.
20 per cent from the Government of Andhra Pradesh. the remaining 35 per cent allottees are continuing to stay here.000 per month. Lakhs) Units sanctioned Physical Progress – Completed up till December 2006 Housing 22.total allocation under VAMBAY was to be provided for sanitation and community toilets were to be built for the urban poor and slum dwellers. Nearly 40 per cent of the surveyed households migrated to Hyderabad between 5 to 10 years ago. Many of the households are regular job holders at JJ Government Mental Hospital. The rest of the households in NTR Nagar are formally registered allottees under VAMBAY scheme.000 dwelling units along with infrastructure and basic service provision. However.000 to Rs. The increasing cost of providing infrastructure and housing both has made it difficult for the GHMC to meet the targets set as well as maintain the quality of construction. 5. Some residents are project-affected people (PAP) – households relocated from Lakdi-ka-pul due to the new Master Plan proposal of Multi-Modal Transport System (MMTS) train route. 2009 2.67 lakhs cost per unit as proposed by GHMC was composed of contributions of 50 per cent by the Government of India (GoI). Others are relocated from Amirpet – the quarters of the employees in JJ Government Mental Hospital which were demolished and the residents were relocated to NTR Nagar. 20 per cent from bank loan to the beneficiary and 10 per cent as down payment by the beneficiary. Table 5: Status of VAMBAY in Andhra Pradesh Allocation and physical progress Cumulative allocation (GoI subsidy in Rs. Majority of the residents are living in NTR Nagar since 2002-2003. 15 .646 57 392 138 Source: Data from GHMC officials. this financial proposal was rejected by the GoI and thus. GHMC cancelled more than 27.7. (MoHUPA9) By 2006.1 Project locales The two project locations selected are: NTR Nagar and Nandanavanam in Hyderabad. GHMC applied revised costs per unit for Hyderabad. lakhs) GoI subsidy released (in Rs.379 units. 10. Almost 50 per cent of the surveyed households fall within the income bracket of Rs. unlike the costing figures presented in the guidelines from MHUPA. Amirpet. Average family size in NTR Nagar is 5. The Rs. NTR Nagar is a mixed allotment of people of 700 families with a higher concentration of Hindus. 2.000 per month. However. remaining residents are construction labour or vendors. while about 5 per cent have sold out their allotted houses.644 Toilets 10. averaging at an income of around Rs. who comprise about half of the occupants.190 63. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) completed more than 33.5. Primary survey showed that the composition of households in this VAMBAY settlement today stands as thus – about 60 per cent of allottees have rented out their houses.867 99.
100 per cent households 16 .000 to Rs. In Nandanavanam.000 and about 55 per cent of the residents here are the original allottees. averaging at Rs. It was reported that the officials promised to put up permanent facilities once all the houses were occupied. while 30 per cent households reported to have migrated more than 10 years ago. Currently the composition of the households in Nandanavanam is as follows: around 30 per cent of the houses were rented out. Residents here feel their peripheral location is the reason behind the GHMC’s apathy towards garbage collection from this site. individual toilets and sewerage lines.In the other site. 15 per cent were sold out for a price range of Rs 100. Contrary to their older housing. in NTR Nagar nearly 99 per cent households have reported non-availability of solid waste disposal service. the availability of both. The sewerage lines breaks or clogs frequently. individual water supply was reported to cover 90 per cent of the surveyed households. in 2003. The storm-water drains remain clogged and over flow onto the streets. have not solved the issue of sanitation in NTR Nagar. The Municipal Corporation (that is the GHMC) has remained indifferent to such issues. Before shifting into the VAMBAY colony almost 66 per cent of the households did not have access to individual water connection.000. individual water supply was reported to cover 100 per cent of slum households (Table 6). All maintenance issues have to be looked after by individual households themselves. creating a very unhealthy environment. Champapet. and Pedda Kottapalli. It has taken many years to convince people to claim their dwelling units in this colony because of the lack of basic services. auto drivers. water connection and drainage. as taxi drivers. Nandanavanam.250. However. water connection provision was completed only in 2008. None of the allottees are satisfied with the housing scheme – when it was opened in 2004. Uppal. Uppal. Ajumpur. Chandarghat. 3000 per month. The slum dwellers of Nadanavanam are predominantly Hindus (80 per cent) of scheduled caste (50 per cent). while the settlement had started populating nearly 7-8 years ago.1.2 Status of case-study sites: VAMBAY 2. Ramtanpuram. Nearly 37 per cent of the surveyed households migrated to Hyderabad city less than 5 years ago. The household has an average of 4-5 members and the maximum education level is up to senior secondary level. The residents are primarily engaged as labour in construction work.5. most of households have been relocated from around Hyderabad Municipal Corporation – Musarambag near Musi river. Nearly 54 per cent of the surveyed households fall within the income category of Rs. the colony did not have basic facilities of electricity.1 Availability of basic services In NTR Nagar.2. However. People started shifting into Nandanavanam in about 2004 and the process is still on-going. Within this scheme. Individual toilets and sewerage line have been provided under the Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA). 2. while some are regular job holders.500 to Rs.
Almost 65 per cent of the households did not have access to individual toilets in their previous housing. the street lights do not work many a times and the roads get inundated with drainage water. In 2006. Sewerage line connection is available to all households in VAMBAY housing. Coverage of sewerage line and storm water drainage is throughout the settlement. 78 per cent households access both primary and secondary schooling for their children in this 17 . from this site. the construction of these lines has been very slow because of which many of the original allottees are apprehensive of shifting into Nadanavanam. street lights and electricity.2. more than 95 per cent of the surveyed households reported availability of all three facilities (Table 7). However. away. Table 7: Availability of Physical Infrastructure (hh in %) Physical Infrastructure available to HHs (in %) Road Street lighting Electricity Previous Housing NTR Nagar VAMBAY Housing 41 46 31 94 96 97 Nandanavanam Previous Housing VAMBAY Housing 93 100 93 99 93 100 In terms of social infrastructure.* 0 * Data not available 2. people have very slowly trickled in but are very unhappy with the basic services provided here. street lighting and electricity. There are numerous reported cases of allottees selling their houses. No service has been provided for solid waste management within the colony. Very few people access government hospitals as there are no PHC or any hospital for at least 7-8 km. two years after completion of the colony. Further. out of the 96 houses only 30 were occupied.A. VAMBAY scheme provided roads. 51 per cent households surveyed in NTR Nagar reported accessing private hospitals and 39 per cent of the households accessed the Primary Health Centre (PHC). Table 6: Availability of Basic Services (% of hh) Basic Services available to HHs (in %) Individual Water Supply Individual toilets Sewerage Line Storm water Drainage Solid Waste Management Previous Housing NTR Nagar VAMBAY Housing 78 90 90 87 14 100 100 96 89 0 Nandanavanam Previous Housing VAMBAY Housing 21 90 35 100 22 96 25 100 N. However. Even the most basic medical shop is about 5 km. Likewise.have individual toilets. physical infrastructure provision has been confirmed by 100 per cent households for roads. in Nandanavanam. Thereafter.2 Availability of Physical and Social infrastructure In NTR Nagar.
In general. many children have to travel nearly 8 km for their secondary schools in the city. NTR Nagar has an average family size of 5. However. the overall quality of the buildings is very poor. PHCs or community centres around the colony.settlement. with almost 69 per cent households accessing the same for their medical requirements.2. 2.5 members so nearly 20 per cent households have built extra rooms on their own. almost 40 per cent of the surveyed households had three or more rooms per dwelling unit. This is again a disadvantage for the community because in their previous house. construction each unit was designed with only 1 room. to the nearest bus stop or community centre.3 Quality of housing All households in NTR Nagar have been built with permanent materials (brick walls. children have to travel at least 5 km. Unlike NTR Nagar all the houses have 2 rooms with separate kitchen. Rains and daily wear and tear has already started reducing the buildings to a state of dilapidation. As per the scheme. RCC roofs. Before shifting to NTR Nagar. hospitals. However. while they received only 1 room per family on the rehabilitation site. A hospital construction just started in 2009. Nearly 80 per cent of households surveyed in NTR Nagar have 1 roomdwelling unit (Table 8). In fact. Nandavanam lacks schools. Table 8: Status of Housing Structure (hh%) Housing structure available to HHs (in %) 1 room 2 rooms 3 rooms More than 3 rooms Separate Kitchen Previous Housing NTR Nagar VAMBAY Housing 38 23 11 28 93 80 15 4 0 87 Nandanavanam Previous Housing VAMBAY Housing 66 1 16 98 7 0 3 0 21 97 18 . One has to travel at least 3 km. All housing units in Nandanavanam have been constructed with permanent materials. for both primary and secondary schools. the residents of this colony have to travel nearly 8 to 10 km to the city for government facilities. Almost 82 per cent families have reported availability of separate kitchen in NTR Nagar. in spite of the permanency of the material. VAMBAY has improved their housing condition. tiled floor). The community can at best afford the government hospitals. Nearly 66 per cent of the surveyed households formerly lived in one-room units and hence. for these households.
Waste water flows out into the streets.623 % share of expenditure to total 53 17 11 5 14 100 Expenditure in VAMBAY Housing (in Rs.625 % share of expenditure to total 50 17 9 6 17 100 % increase in expenditure due to relocation 31 38 23 76 65 38 Food Education Medical Electricity Transportation Total It is to be noted that although most other expenditures remain the same for the community with the change of their housing location. Majority of surveyed households (61 19 . The average increase in expenses per household across the community is found to be almost of 38 per cent as against their expenditure in their older housing conditions (Table 9).397 456 277 130 363 2. NTR Nagar Expenditure Expenditure in Previous Housing (in Rs. more than 20 per cent than in their previous locality. sewerage lines are not linked and they have to frequently face medical expenses. Nandanavanam and Schematic design of Unit* *Unit design as per as per AP State Housing Corporation 2.2. which indicates use of more use of electrical appliances than before as well as metered energy bill collections post-resettlement.827 629 340 229 600 3. while food and medical expenses decreased at a similar rate. their expenses on transportation has increased by 3 per cent.4 Expenditure Pattern The expenditure pattern has been reported to have under gone an increase for most families in NTR Nagar. Table 9: Change in Average Expenditure for Different Items. Average transportation expense per household has increased by nearly 65 per cent.) 1.) 1. From discussions it was revealed that relocation to the city periphery has imposed numerous problems upon the community’s daily life in NTR Nagar. The highest increase is seen in electricity expenditure.Figure 2-1: VAMBAY Housing. because they are currently staying in a very unhealthy environment in NTR Nagar. Most of the households also feel that their medical expenses have increased. The drainage system is out of order.
one of the fore-runners in social welfare has been unable to implement and realize the main objective of VAMBAY – housing for all BPL families in urban areas. Simultaneously.342 275 426 170 433 2. envisioned as an answer to housing issues in India. Reports have also mentioned that the allottees have refused to move to their VAMBAY housing because of their peripheral locations in areas not served by public transport.646 % of total expenditure 51 10 16 6 16 1 VAMBAY Housing (in Rs. while from NTR Nagar only13 per cent families have this convenience.. at times in temporary accommodations in spite of their VAMBAY units being complete. on an average. from where only 18 per cent families were travelling this distance (Table 10). unlike their previous housing location. Table 11: Change in the Average Expenditure on Select Items. Andhra Pradesh. incomplete services. Nandanavanam Items Previous housing (in Rs. 18 per cent households in the survey report that they travel more than 10 km for their daily work. it is seen that households have an increase in overall expenses by 33 per cent (Table 11). Nearly 55 per cent of the surveyed households have reported that they have to travel anywhere between 5 to 10 km for their jobs. etc. In fact. Table 10: Distance travelled to work-place (% of hh). non-existent social infrastructure.652 533 510 181 635 3. This is due to the location of Nadanavanam colony nearly 15 km away from city centre. This is the most expected item contributing to increased expenditure in Nandanavanam. that of 47 per cent. The expense on transportation has seen the next highest raise. non-allotment of housing to selected beneficiaries.) 1.) 1.511 % of total expenditure 47 15 15 5 18 1 Increase in average expenditure (in %) 23 94 20 6 47 33 Food Education Medical Electricity Transportation Total 2. NTR Nagar Distance to work-place Less than 5 km 5 to 10 km More than 10 km Previous Housing 51 31 18 VAMBAY Housing 13 25 61 In Nandanvanam.3 VAMBAY performance in Andhra Pradesh VAMBAY.per cent) travelled more than 10 km to their workplace daily. News reports claim VAMBAY implementation to be rife with issues such as non-transparent beneficiary selection. The allottees have been reported to be staying in incomplete houses. 20 . from their previous housing nearly 51 households were travelling less than 5 km. has been disappointing.
6. dank interiors and no water or sewerage connection with pipes already giving way. bad cement work. a resident of Indiranagar. They took four years to build this and everyone can see what they have done.” The Hindu. Only 35 per cent households in NTR Nagar and 55 per cent in households in Nandanvanam are the original allottees. and the rest are either new tenants or new buyers of the housing units. amidst allegations that the district administration was ‘slowing down’ the process of giving ‘ownership’ rights to them. Over 300 beneficiaries. mostly women from weaker sections. Under the scheme. Among the allottees. Initially. Decades after living in a shanty. his dream of living in a modern dwelling is coming true. the administration has not constructed our houses.” says Sangaiah giving a wry smile. “We paid Rs. VAMBAY in the News HYDERABAD: “Sangaiah’s face is inscrutable. It has the hallmark of a poor construction supervised by an apathetic district administration with awful finish. He and all beneficiaries are from weaker sections. Thursday Nov 1. it took a long time to convince the people to shift their houses to the new locations. which were yet to receive fully constructed houses under the scheme. They said there were 700 families. drainage and electricity here.Box 1.” argued 80-year-old Kantamma.110 in 2003 in addition to Rs. we have been fighting to occupy our allotted houses. 2008 HYDERABAD: “Beneficiaries of Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojana (Vambay) on Wednesday took possession of their house units at Kukatpally Allwyn Colony. the scheme promised to provide shelter to all the 1.“I have been living here in a slum for four decades. But. it does not look much different from his old home! And to think that his small flat in a building of 23 other one-room tenements was constructed under the Centre-sponsored ‘Valmiki Ambedkar Awaas Yojana’ (Vambay) by the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited! The building at Netajinagar in Musheerabad was supposed to be ready for inauguration for the last one year though it is difficult to see how. 2007 In the case-study VAMBAY colonies of NTR Nagar and Nandanavanam in GHMC. who performed Pooja before they took possession of the houses. 250 per month to the bank for the home loan.” said P.” The Hindu.100 house units were sanctioned out of which only 330 units were constructed while the remaining units are at various stages of completion. welcomed State Bharatiya Janata Party president Bandaru Dattatreya. Savithri. The district administration had not made any arrangements to provide basic amenities like roads. 1. Thursday Feb 07. We have decided to live here and fight for our rights. Even now many of the allottee households are still living in their previous housing and do not want to shift mainly because of the distance of these locations from the city activity centre. Despite this. They are intentionally delaying the allotment. water supply. The old man does not know whether to laugh or cry. ramshackle doors. This means that the remaining allottee households continue to live in their former housing or in other locations in the city. as high as 60 per cent in NTR Nagar and 30 per cent in 21 .120 families of this colony. “For one year.
The peripheral location has negatively impacted solid waste management service. 60. As per revised rates. However. The core concern in shelter security is not only about providing a dwelling unit.000 as conceived during the programme inception. It is not enough to just provide the service infrastructure. As found from this study. The households have gained with regards to availability of the physical services but the maintenance of the basic services. medical attention and day to day needs – both communities have to travel into the city. unpaved storm water drainage system. the housing unit size has declined for majority of the households. roads. unpaved approach roads. The sewerage drains get blocked often. not only of the households but also 22 . failure of schemes is not a one-sided story. 2. daily for work. Providing toilets without efficient connectivity with sewerage lines. the top-down approach towards such programmes makes them inflexible and accommodative of the community’s own needs and aspirations. The third issue is that the households were living in larger houses with more number of rooms in a slum prior to their rehabilitation in a VAMBAY unit. Both NTR Nagar and Nandanvanam have no dedicated social infrastructure for such huge populations. Housing provided away from the place of work and without social infrastructure can never sustain a community. etc. street lights and electricity has improved. GHMC had proposed for a revised financial plan for the dwelling units – but it was rejected by the central government. Across the board.– all such discrepancies in a housing scheme eventually leads to the formation of a slum. This shows that when the government decides to provide a fully constructed house. The storm water drains are not paved and hence the water flows out onto the streets. India has in fact seen enormous resources in such schemes go to waste because of lack of maintenance. Any construction calculation basics can prove the validity of GHMC’s revised costs. which is about 10-15 km away. is outdated and needs to be revised. For schooling. instead of Rs. in spite of their provision by the Corporation. the survey shows that the availability of physical services such as water supply. lack of street lights. this proposal was rejected and GHMC has decided to ground thousands of proposed dwelling units. more than 50 per cent households travel out more than 5 km. GHMC proposed the units to cost Rs. Yet. storm water drainage. sewerage. The unit cost decided during the inception of the VAMBAY scheme. still remains a big concern in the VAMBAY settlements. 1 to 2 lakhs and are back to their original slum locations within the city. Such bureaucratic obstacles are rampant in the implementation of programmes in India.Nandanvanam have rented out their houses. As seen from the case-studies.67 lakhs. the cost goes above the affordable limits. without maintenance by the local authority any new housing scheme is more likely than not to be relegated to slum-like condition. At the same time. Those who have sold out have made about Rs.
previously residing in slums or rental housing. Suryapet.650 housing units. Bhongir and Miryalguda. The RGK programme is functioning in 5 divisions of Nalgonda district: Nalgonda (Urban). Nalgonda city has allotted and completed 336 dwelling units of which only 196 (58 per cent) have been actually handed over 12. the entire financing of such shelter programmes need to be re-assessed given that the construction materials’ costs have been increasing and would continue to increase if India is to have high economic growth rates. with 100. RGK scheme in Mammillaguda. as per the 2001 Census.32 per cent is urban and occupy an area of 14. The beneficiaries are primarily from the EWS class. The beneficiaries in this site have been relocated from Bottuguda. Charllapalli. and 15. Hyderabad was to have 14 projects.of the implementing authority. 17. RGK scheme has sanctioned 23. However. Of the 196 units. In essence. our analysis for this paper is of RGK housing site at Nalgonda. It envisioned the construction of 2 lakh housing units in 2005-2006 for the EWS and LIG classes. Nalgonda has a population of 3. only 49 houses (25 per cent of the actual allotment and 14. Pangal and R. The ownership of the dwelling unit was to be transferred to the beneficiary at the end of the 20-year loan period. Santinagar. Of these. 3 Rajiv Gruha Kalpa (RGK) The VAMBAY Housing Project as well as the Indiramma Urban Permanent Housing Scheme could not meet the housing demands existing in the cities of Andhra Pradesh. As of 2009.426 have been completely handed over to the allottees. The remaining proposed projects under the programme RGK were merged with the INDIRAMMA programme. another affordable housing project was initiated by the Government of AP as Rajiv Swagruha Kalpa in 2007. In other studies of EWS public housing. and two in Ranga Reddy district. 3. Nalgonda district was selected for analysis. which led to the initiation of a new urban housing scheme.11 This scheme was grounded in 2006-2007 and only four of the 16 sanctioned projects have been completed to some degree and handed over to the beneficiaries. km.Road of Nalgonda city.168 dwelling units have been allotted. Rangioil. thereafter the 23 .P. In the lines of RGK. Nalgonda (Rural). All the beneficiaries had to submit an application for RGK housing. Later all the received applications were verified by the implementing agency APSHCL.1 Project locales For this study. Rajiv Gruha Kalpa 10 (RGK).24 lakhs of which 13.5 per cent of the total constructed) have been occupied as of now and a household survey was conducted in all of them.000 houses in Hyderabad agglomeration area alone. Ravindranagar. it has been found that the private contractors do not come forward to construct such dwelling units because the Schedule of Rates (SORs) are lower than what the market costs of construction materials.240 sq.
Indian Overseas Bank.500 per month.500 per dwelling unit.500 and received loan amount of Rs. hospital boys. SBI etc.2. Nearly. On comparing with their previous housing conditions. The Nalgonda Municipality has not assigned any scheduled garbage collection in the RGK colony. many households were not able to dispose their sewerage waste into these drains.2 Status of case-study site: RGK 3.6. The scheme housing costs Rs. as peons. Almost 50 per cent male members in the slum are self-employed as tailors. Nearly. have reported having access to individual water connections in their rental housing. 84. Each block has received loan sanction from different banks like Andhra Bank. Very few are employed in regular jobs. The allotment is by a lottery system after the final list of beneficiaries is fixed.1 Availability of Basic Services All the households in Mamillaguda have reported the availability of the basic services – individual water supply. Solid waste management has been a problem area. 5. sewerage line and storm water drainage.000 per month. auto drivers. nearly 90 per cent of the households. individual toilets. for which each household has given a down payments of Rs. etc. Residents complain that they are neglected by the Municipality and any complaints regarding the maintenance of the facilities are not heeded to on a timely manner. Sewerage line and storm water drainage has been provided in this slum but due to their defective construction. 84.final list of beneficiaries were selected. 45 per cent of the families now living in the RGK Scheme housing have shifted in since 2007-2008. while the rest of the households are less than 1 year old in this colony. etc and 38 per cent are occupied as daily wage labour. averaging around Rs. Canara Bank. in the municipality as cleaners. Table 12: Coverage of households by Basic Services under RGK Scheme (% of hh) Items Individual water supply Individual toilets Sewerage line Storm water drainage Solid waste management Previous housing Available Not Available 90 10 98 2 98 2 80 20 29 71 RGK Housing Scheme Available Not Available 100 0 100 0 100 0 72 23 0 100 Previously. 49 per cent households earn less than Rs. it was found that these households already had all these basic services even in their previous housing. especially the ones in rental housing. albeit with maintenance problems.500. 3. 24 . to be repaid over 20 years period. 4. Nearly 50 per cent families have 4-member households.
life has deteriorated in terms of security and quality of living environment. RCC roofs and wooden doors and windows. 100 per cent of the RGK colony residents had access to paved roads.4 Housing Quality The housing quality in RGK housing is comparatively better than in the former housing of these residents. more than 50 per cent households had only one-room dwelling units. 3. Currently. only 6 per cent families have reported the availability of streetlights in the colony. House construction is with permanent materials.2 Availability of Physical Infrastructure In the RGK Scheme housing. Table 13: Coverage of Households by Physical Infrastructure (% of hh) Infrastructure Roads Street lights Electricity Previous Housing Available Not Available 100 0 84 16 96 4 RGK Housing Available Not Available 12 88 6 94 98 2 Other than electricity provision which is available to nearly 98 per cent of the households. every family has two-room dwelling units with separate kitchen. This has been one of the biggest impediments in populating the colony since its opening. There are no hospitals around the colony – they have to travel at least 5 to 8 km. Many families reported that when they shifted into the house. the availability of physical infrastructure is poorer than VAMBAY’s. This brings out the lack of access roads within the colony. They are happy that at least the site plan is such that they have open spaces around the colony. There are no community centres either. infrastructure is in a poor state.2. doors and windows were missing and they had to spend out of their own pockets to fix them. only one anganwadi. while the rest have cemented floors. they have to travel into the city.3 Availability of Social Infrastructure There is not much in the name of social infrastructure or networks.3. For most of the residents now living here.2. Nearly 74 per cent households reported tiled floors. In comparison to their previous housing. in terms of street lights. now only 12 per cent families have reported the availability of some roads (Table 13). Again. In their previous housing. 25 . for a school or hospital.2. Non-availability of proper roads and street lights has posed serious personal safety concerns in the colony. All dwelling units have brick walls. the physical infrastructure is worse in Mamillaguda. In their previous house. There are no schools in the area. 3. So even for their daily requirements.
Figure 3-1: RGK Housing in Mamillaguda and Schematic plan* *From the AP State Housing Corporation 3. On the whole. Table 14: Change in Average Expenditure per Household Expenditure items Food Education Medical Transport Electricity Total Average expenditure (Rs.) in previous housing 1. almost 55 per cent of 26 .913 % share to total 60 18 11 7 4 1 Change in expenditure (%) 36 132 46 81 27 51 Compared to their older location. It is likely that on shifting to city’s periphery the households have shifted their children to another school in the new neighbourhood. It appears that the new school in the neighbourhood is a private school whereas the previous school was a public school.275 221 218 120 99 1. In short. households have reported that more families have to travel more than 5 km. The maximum increase in expenditure has been in education (132 per cent).5 Expenditure pattern In Mamillaguda.) in RGK Housing 1. Distance to all other activities. total expenditure has increased by almost 51 per cent (Table 14). hospital. for work (Table 15).740 512 318 217 126 2. followed by transport (81 per cent). which has resulted in such drastic increase in transport expenditure as compared to what they were incurring in their previous locations. work place and other social facilities seems to have increased.933 % share to total 66 11 11 6 5 1 Average expenditure (Rs. etc. community centre or market.2. the households have seen such increased expenses mostly due to the lack of supporting infrastructure to the community as well as their location away from all other social infrastructure like school. the expenditure increased considerably for most households on all the items of consumption. Prior to shifting to the RGK scheme. thereby increasing the cost of education.
nobody would have accepted them in their present state”. Though inaugurated five months ago.m. Rajiv Gruha Kalpa: an apology for housing! The Hindu. Friday July 24.V. wash clothes and utensils. Worse is the situation when it comes to daily ablutions. a resident. “How can I have my young daughter going out in search of loo sites at 10 p. and even bathe downstairs in open. we are forced to wait till sunset to defecate in open by the lakeside where we are exposed to perils such as snakebites or attacks from outsiders.the current residents of RGK were residing in the city centre. 2009 1 Swathi.hindu. Box 2. Table 15: Distance to be travelled to the City Centre (% of hh) Distance to City Centre 1 to 5 km 5 to 10 km More than 10 km Residence at City Centre Previous Housing 44 0 0 55 RGK Housing 85 15 0 0 Although decongesting the city centre from slum housing is desirable for greater public good.?” questions G. 24 July 2009. 3. RGK has poor infrastructure provision. They had minimal transport expenses to bear.2.htm) 27 . In the new location the households’ expenditure have increased to almost double of what they were incurring in their previous housing location. relocating the low-income households to neighbourhoods lacking in social and physical infrastructure as well as safety and security indicates lack of understanding of the needs of low income residents. Only 332 houses were completed in 2008-09.” The Hindu. because unless for poverty. of which only 49 dwelling units have been occupied. the residents brush. Rajiv Gruha Kalpa in the News HYDERABAD “An apology for housing. Despite having toilets. Warned by the officials not to use the toilets till their approval. Kavitha. the complex lacks in everything that is fundamental for a house to be called a house. It also shows apathy of the planners with regards to the urban poor.com/2009/07/24/stories/2009072459020300.6 Rajiv Gruha Kalpa performance in Andhra Pradesh RGK’s target of providing 2 lakh housing units for the EWS and LIG has not been met as envisaged. the much-vaunted urban housing project for the poor at Nizampet under the Rajiv Gruha Kalpa scheme fails miserably in its purpose. market. Unlike VAMBAY which has the basic infrastructure in place. “There is no water. To put in the words of an occupant. This fails RGK’s vision of providing housing as an answer to the exponential growth of population in nine districts in and around Hyderabad. accessed on 3 Dec 2010 (http://www. nor is there drainage connection. the houses are “a mockery of our helplessness. and school. The scheme has been reported as a failure from other RGK sites as well1. hospital were all within walking distance.
in/schemes/IHSDP_Urban.nic. 2 More details about IHSDP can be accessed on the Government website (http://housing. The total units to be built was proposed at 378. 126 units are completed. In short.In Mamillaguda. while the remaining 252 are all at various stages of completion. The scheme is applicable to all cities and towns as per 2001 Census except cities and towns covered under the JNNURM. The other problem with the RGK is that the projects are outside the city limits and the households have been forced to incur more expenditures than earlier on transportation for various needs. As per municipality records. The scheme seems to enhance public and private investments in housing and infrastructural development in urban areas. at a cost of Rs. 4 Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme 2 aims at combining the existing schemes of VAMBAY and NSDP under the new IHSDP Scheme for having an integrated approach in ameliorating the conditions of the urban slum dwellers who do not possess adequate shelter and reside in dilapidated conditions. The primary survey revealed that nearly 46 per cent households living in the colony are tenants paying rent to the original allottees. In all. it is understandable that allottees would prefer not shifting in.37 crores. the INDIRAMMA Housing was merged with IHSDP programme. in four slums of which 194 would be for the relocated community in Mamillaguda. The basic objective of the scheme is to strive for holistic slum development with a healthy and enabling urban environment by providing adequate shelter and basic infrastructure facilities to the slum dwellers of the identified urban areas. In such a case. From discussions with the residents. as per Municipal records development of 4 slums in Nalgonda was approved.html) 28 . In 2006. the residents’ feedback of the households on RGK is not very good. and which seem to be more expensive than their earlier schools.gov. it was found that nearly 75 per cent of the allotted houses have been rented out or are still empty. even after they received legal ownership of the house. Further. 3. The state government has designated and notified APSHCL as implementing agency for IHSDP scheme from 2006. basic infrastructure like road and street-lights are missing even 2 to 3 years after residents have started living in the colony. In Andhra Pradesh.html and https://jnnurmmis. the overall cost of living has gone up for the families that have shifted to the new housing. Chaitanya Nagar and Pangal. it appears that the families had to put their children in new schools nearby. while 184 units are to be redeveloped insitu in the slum group of Sri Krishna Nagar.in/jnnurm_hupa/index.cgg.
nearly 40 per cent of the households reported to have built their homes by themselves. The in-situ redevelopment in Pangal was completed in 2009. Funds were not given for construction of toilets and hence most households made their own investments to add sanitation and washing areas as well as other requirements to their two-roomed accommodation constructed by themselves. Nearly 70 per cent households fall below the income range of Rs.000. 50. Being a participatory project. 300. 1. 3.1 Project locales The group of communities selected for the IHSDP in-situ development are Krishna Nagar. 73. Chaitanya Nagar and Pangal (together called Pangal). From all the settlements. 40. The units have cost an amount of Rs.300. 29 . 60. with the government’s contribution of funds and subsidized building materials. the remaining 15 per cent are regular salaried employees. Most residents here are from the surrounding areas of Shivaji Nagar. currently living in the scheme housing. 15 years. as per requirement. Nearly 95 per cent households have reported spending between Rs.000 to Rs.000 per month.4. The colony has about 176 households. The APSHCL has granted the loan of Rs. The other IHSDP colony surveyed is in Mamillaguda near the RGK about 3 to 4 km distance from the city centre. All the residents surveyed are the original allottees. Boiwada. More than 50 per cent of the household head are employed as daily wage earners. as evident from the household survey. Being an in-situ development.000 per month. 40. so most people have made their own investments to add sanitation and washing areas as well as other requirements to their tworoomed accommodations. All the residents surveyed are the original allottees.000 to the households. for which the selected beneficiaries have made down payments of Rs. a total of 52 households were surveyed for assessment.000 from their own pockets on their individual dwelling units. Beneficiaries paid different amounts as per the scheme allocations – between Rs. of which 23 households were surveyed for this study. while about 30 per cent are self employed.000. More than 50 per cent of the households are daily wage earners. for a repayment period of Rs.000 on their individual dwelling units.000 to Rs. while about 35 per cent are self employed. Nearly 95 per cent households have reported spending between Rs. 3. BTS and Padmavathi colony. 5. the IHSDP scheme for this locality provided a mix of infrastructure. Most of the households shifted into this colony in the last 1 to 3 years. The APSHCL disbursed the funds for only home improvement to those who had land. basic services and dwelling units. 35.000 to Rs. 200. Nearly 82 per cent households fall below the income range of Rs. the remaining few are regular salaried employees. Toilets were not build as part of this scheme. There was no loan component for this redevelopment. and renting out houses is not common.
the households have complaints against the infrequency of water supply. IHSDP (% of hh) Basic Services available to HHs (in %) Individual Water Supply Individual toilets Sewerage Line Storm water Drainage Solid Waste Management Previous Housing In-situ development IHSDP Housing 42 36 27 12 27 90 90 79 65 66 Rehabilitation Previous Housing IHSDP Housing 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 60 4. toilets were built by the individual households. availability of physical infrastructure is not very impressive.2. But. In the relocated IHSDP site in Mamillaguda. Table 16: Availability of Basic services. the advantage of in-situ development was that no new social infrastructure had to be provided. However. are all within easy reach from the colony. Although electricity provision has increased to 94 per cent households from a former total of 77 households.2 Status of case-study sites: IHSDP 4. etc.1 Availability of Basic Services The comparative analysis of situation before and after the in-situ development enumerates a better standard of living environment for the slum dwellers. In this period. sewerage and storm water drainage. PHC. In comparison to 42 per cent households in previous housing.2 Availability of Physical and Social Infrastructure In the on-site IHSDP development. Rather in the relocated colony. making expenses out of their pocket. with open drains and no system of waste disposal in place.2.4. At the time of project proposal. it was found that these households already had all these basic services even in their previous housing. Storm water drainage and solid waste management are still in a deplorable condition. but nothing is in place as of now.. now almost 90 per cent have reported availability of individual water supply under IHSDP housing. the other facilities of paved roads and street lights are still in poor condition in these localities. households invested their own money in sanitation and now nearly 90 per cent of the respondent households have access to individual toilets. individual toilets. government hospitals and community centres and halls are easily accessible to all because of their location within the city area. colleges. Residents also have complaints against the solid waste management system. 30 . all the households have reported the availability of the basic services of individual water supply. They have reported that the municipality does not collect garbage from their colony for weeks at a time. On making a comparative study with their previous housing condition. SHGs were to be involved in the SWM. Schools.
31 . They are happy living in this locality. The construction of the house has been done with permanent materials. only an anganwadi. The construction material is better than what they had in their previous houses. All dwelling units have brick walls. mainly as they have the ownership of the house. Yet the residents are satisfied with the way the scheme has turned out. RCC roofs and wooden doors and windows. while many have kept it only cemented. every family has two-roomed dwelling units with separate kitchens. Currently. For windows. but separate kitchen is not available to almost 25 per cent of the respondents. Table 17: Coverage of Households by Physical Infrastructure (% of hh) Infrastructure available to HHs (in %) Road Street lighting Electricity In-situ development Previous IHSDP Housing Housing 33 44 56 64 77 94 Rehabilitation Previous Housing IHSDP Housing 100 9 100 0 100 100 4. There are no hospitals around the colony. some households have invested in metal frames.2. The colony also has no street-lights rendering it unsafe for its residents. there are very poor roads and the available roads are unpaved.In the relocated colony also.3 Quality of Housing In the in-situ development. the housing quality is comparatively better than in the previous housing conditions of these residents. All dwelling units have brick walls. In terms of social infrastructure also the situation is poor with no schools in the area. all the houses now have 2-rooms. nearly 65 per cent households did not have separate kitchens in their house. All the residents have reported the availability of electricity. Many did not change the core design of the house and kept the kitchen outside the house or within the living room. The construction of the house has been done with permanent materials. More than 91 per cent households have reported the lack of roads within the colony. In the relocated site of Mamillaguda. Tiled floor completed in 90 per cent households. RCC roofs and wooden doors. There are no community centres either. In their previous house.
Residents have experienced an increase of 27 per cent in the total monthly expenses of the households.2. The highest expense increase was seen in electricity consumption. 32 .Figure 4-1: Relocated IHSDP housing in Mamillaguda Figure 4-2: Site plan for Nalgonda Source: From Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation office 4. as many more households have got legal connections.4 Expenditure pattern Being an in-situ development. With in-situ development. expenditure increase in transportation is the least. Food expenses have seen a fall by 6 per cent in its share. as expected the expenses of the households did not undergo much change in terms of share of different overheads to total expenditure.
4. the programme did not have to provide for any social infrastructure. It seems that there has been overwhelming focus on improving the shelter conditions than improving services conditions! There is however.367 383 335 189 92 2. the community has been left to fend for its own. At least for the in-situ development. From the general discussions it was gathered that food and medical expense increase was experienced by the community but they could not say anything definitive about the changes in education. In the case of in-situ development. improvement in the quality of life of the beneficiaries is not as expected. a difference between the responses of the two approaches to this programme. whereby the households face the same problems of water-logging in the rains and lack of safety in the night. services’ improvement should have been minimum that should have been done under the programme. All respondent households in both the developments were the original allottees to the scheme housing. They are however. The programme emphasis was on construction of shelter units. the respondents are satisfied that they have a permanent house now.Table 18: Change in the Expenditure Pattern after In-Situ Development Items Average expenditure in previous housing (Rs. electricity and transport expenses. Thus. group discussions revealed that many of the houses are unoccupied by the allottees as they are not satisfied with the location of the colony. The provision of subsidized materials for constructing permanent dwelling units within the same area where they were originally residing is seen as a positive development by the community.) 1. Those who have undergone in-situ development are happier than the ones relocated as the latter group of people were shifted out of the city. most of the respondents have reported to be satisfied with the development done under IHSDP. but the condition of physical infrastructure in the colony is poor. but in the relocated site.366 % share to total 58 16 14 7 3 1 Average expenditure in IHSDP (Rs. 33 .) 1. Lack of access roads and street-lights have rendered the colony with the same slum-like condition as before. either in-situ or on the new site. But.582 522 498 254 165 3. the services have not improved to the extent expected and consequently. While in the rehabilitation site.021 % share of total 52 17 16 8 5 1 % Change in expenditure 15 36 48 34 79 27 Food Education Medicines Transportation Electricity Total In the relocated site in Mamillaguda.3 IHSDP performance in Andhra Pradesh In the in-situ development colony. all the households stay within 5 km of the city centre and have to travel not more than 4 km for work. not satisfied with the physical infrastructure provision. the expenditure pattern could not be analysed due to the lack of responses from the community. In the redevelopment site though.
In this site. in the former. the lack of paved roads and street lights is reported as a glaring issue. IHSDP Housing in Nalgonda had 2 approaches to redevelopment: in-situ and relocation. They made expenses out of their pockets to remedy this. encompassing the settlements of Sri Krishna Nagar and Chaitanya Nagar. yet both the programmes are still on-going in the state as different projects. provision of physical infrastructure and basic services for the whole settlement is seen only in the VAMBAY projects. where the dwelling units were occupied. With the size of dwelling units fixed. Apathy from the Municipality on issues of maintenance is a major concern for the residents of both Nandanavanam and NTR Nagar. In Rajiv Gruha Kalpa. In Rajiv Gruha Kalpa. so we selected to research upon the status of housing under VAMBAY. so both type of settlements were selected for analysis. the rehabilitation of the Mamillaguda RGK scheme was faced with the typical problems of lack of physical infrastructure like roads. yet with better housing facilities and permanent materials for constructing their dwelling units.5 Critical Assessment on the housing programmes in Andhra Pradesh For the assessment of housing programmes in Andhra Pradesh we had selected the following programmes: VAMBAY. Roads and street lights have not been provided adequately. Also. in IHSDP coverage of basic services is poorer than the other programmes. However. It took more than 5 years for all the residents to get individual connections in NTR Nagar. IHSDP and Rajiv Gruha Kalpa. this has been a shift from 3 to 4 roomed houses to smaller houses for almost 40 per cent of the residents. However. The provision of basic services like individual water supply has been slow. as the households were provided with money for permanent material for building houses in their original housing location – most households are satisfied 34 . They experience frequent break-down in their service lines. street lights and social infrastructure. However. a state initiated housing project. Many households still do not have individual water connections. while the rest of the allottees are still living in the original locations within the city. VAMBAY programme was studied in NTR Nagar and Nanadavanam of Hyderabad. In case of in-situ development. VAMBAY has been subsumed under the BSUP in Andhra Pradesh. Thus. toilets as well as connections to sewerage lines. IHSDP has in-situ development at the Pangal site. the households have continued to live in the same location. it is not surprising that of the 194 allocated houses only 49 are currently occupied. many households even reported that their dwelling units lacked doors and windows when they shifted in. amongst all the ones surveyed. the households have been shifted to 2-room houses of about 24 sq. storm water drainage. the household survey was conducted in all the 49 households who had occupied the project housing in Nalgonda. In this development.m. there is no garbage collection in both the VAMBAY settlements surveyed for this research. Thus.
given that generally public or municipal schools are not available on the city periphery. solid waste management. accessing health services or commuting to their place of work.1 Post-project situation Physical infrastructure: Other than VAMBAY housing. no other programmes gave cent per cent coverage to beneficiaries under the schemes. breakdown in networks. markets or health centres nearby. which the residents believe is on account of the location of settlements on the periphery. hospitals. They have their social networks in place while the government did not have to worry about providing social infrastructure to these communities. In a mega city like Hyderabad. VAMBAY settlements in NTR Nagar and Nandanavanam are in the city peripheries and the resettled communities have had to rebuild their social networks . NTR Nagar and Nandanavanam.with the better quality of lives now. Physical infrastructure provision is also not satisfactory – other than VAMBAY sites. are being managed by the residents themselves. Lack of maintenance: Although most of the physical infrastructure and basic services are in place in VAMBAY settlements. face problems with the maintenance of these service lines.with no schools. RGK and IHSDP (Mamillaguda site) also approached housing 35 .2 Impact of rehabilitation All the rehabilitated settlements across the programmes have faced the problems of travelling longer distances for every day needs.. Mamillaguda in Nalgonda has both IHSDP and RGK scheme housing and in both sites. Likewise. street lights and paved roads. Thus. peripheral locations mean being more than 10 km away from the established areas of work. Pangal along with associated settlements of Sri Krishna Nagar and Chaitanya Nagar are in-situ IHSDP developments. there is lack of maintenance. there is lack of proper roads and street lights. In the second case. markets. communities have to travel far for schools. work place and schools than before. they are the only slums which do not have to face problems with regards to schooling of their children. 5. Although VAMBAY has all the basic services and physical infrastructure in place. resulting in significant rise in expenditures on education. which is relocation under the IHSDP at Mamillaguda. 5. the residents are facing the lack of storm water drainage. Lack of Social infrastructure: Other than the on-site redevelopment under IHSDP. all other scheme settlements surveyed faced problems with the lack of social infrastructure. Expenditure on education seems to have increased because households may have been forced to send their children to private schools. Choked sewerage and drainage lines. all the other settlements had complaints about the lack of paved roads and street-lights across the settlement. Lack of solid waste management system is the most glaring across all the scheme settlements. etc. health services and transportation. while the shelter conditions have improved. In all other settlements. etc..
communities also need to be made aware of the physical transformations within their dwelling space or of rehabilitation measures. Along with including community contribution in projects through micro-finance. with the caveat that any rehabilitation would have the slum dwellers’ consent and involvement. these case studies indicate that new sets of problems have been created while not solving the old sets of problems. RGK housing all around the state have failed to provide even humane conditions of living.through rehabilitation. Occupants have complained of tenement type settlements. 5. The allottees in many cases prefer to live in slums within the city. rather than be rehabilitated in the city peripheries. Lastly. we would not create a situation of creating new set of problems to address old set of problems. the need for community participation has been mandated. Inspite of being a strong welfare state. this pre-occupation with constructed house would not be there. Information dissemination is an important part of community participation. through various programmes in the state. if housing were to be considered as a basic right. To top this. In fact.4 Summing up A look at the housing programmes in Andhra Pradesh over time and their performances up till date paints a disconcerting picture of social welfare. Also. That inspite of having a house to one’s name had failed to get families to shift to these schemes is a telling fact of the lack of community consent for these programmes. 5. Lands being available in the city periphery. yet all the housing programmes in this research present a poor picture of community involvement in decision making. means that a full house has to be provided and which is feasible only where the lands are available. have not been 36 . In most of these schemes. the governments go for relocation/rehabilitation approach to housing. the success of public housing. with at the least guarantee of no eviction and allowing the community initiatives to blossom. The current RAY programmes being launched has recognised the importance of on-site rehabilitation of slums.3 Absence of Community Participation One critical issue that was observed during our primary survey was that many of the allocated dwelling units were empty. makes even the allocated beneficiaries wary of owning these units. we could find half of the occupants as tenants of the original allottees indicate the failure of these schemes. Community Participation in planning is mandatory for successful implementation of programmes. as the housing site is in rehabilitated sites in city peripheries. as well as garnering their consent. Since the initiation of JNNURM in 2005. be these national programmes like VAMBAY and IHSDP or the state-led programmes like RGK. If housing is seen as a heterogeneous commodity and as a bundle of services. Housing. The selection of resettlement sites showed complete lack of understanding of the livelihood and lifestyle requirements of the communities to be shifted into those houses. many of these schemes remain grossly unoccupied. when seen as a commodity. It has been seen in this study that in all the programmes there is a strong presence of tenants. lacking of water and of poor construction.
Lastly. The best option is always in-situ development and in case that is not possible then relocation on sites nearby their original housing. with the original allottees were still residing somewhere within the city limits in slum housing. but also availability of basic services. it has been seen across the programmes that all the rehabilitated settlements had almost 50 per cent tenants. Locating low-income housing on the city periphery as a consequence of following market logic to housing supply would create more deprivations than it is meant to reduce. The biggest advantage received by the allottees of these programmes is the ownership of a house. Yet. shelter security is an integrated concept. which included not only house structure. Many allottees have also sold off their houses. And many allottees had not occupied the housing leaving a chunk of dwelling units constructed unoccupied. accessibility and social stability. Only then housing security would lead to inclusive development.very successful. 37 .
No. S.Annexure Box 3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Urban Poverty Alleviation Programmes Year of launch 1958 1972 1981 1986 1989 1990 1995 1996 1997 2001 2005 2009 Urban Poverty Alleviation Programmes Urban Community Development (UCD) Environmental Improvement of Urban Slums (EIUS) Low Cost Sanitation for Liberation of Scavengers Urban Basic Services (UBS) Nehru Rozgar Yojna (NRY) Urban Basic Services for the Poor (UBSP) Prime Minister’s Intergrated Urban Poverty Eradication Programme National Slum Development Programme (NSDP) Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojna (SJSRY) Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojna (VAMBAY) Basic Services for Urban Poor (BSUP)/ Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM) Rajiv Awas Yojna (RAY) 38 .
Centre for Good Governance. Working paper 3. (http://www. New Delhi.pdf) ‘Statement showing the year-wise project-wise releases to municipalities up to 31-10-2010’. Ahmedabad.. (2009): Slum Free Cities: A new deal for the urban poor. Global Urban Development (http://www.cgg. D. A.. Mahavir Singh.apufidc.globalurban. 52-62. 17 (3). M. Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (2007): National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy 2007./WP-4-PKM-Housing%20for%20the%20Poor.pdf) Mahadevia.pdf) Guidelines for JnNURM: BSUP and IHSDP.org/p/ind/isipdp/09-07. (2010): “Tenure Security and Urban Social Protection Links: India”.pdf) Mathur.org/. New Delhi (jnnurm... (www. IDS Bulletin. 2003. And P. NIPFP.repec.gov.unrisd. Patel and D. Government of India.. CEPT University./U%20Adusumilli%20Case%20Study.doc) Barrientos..in/. O... India. S.org/GUDMag07Vol3Iss1/MagHome. pp.) Buckley R. Andhra Pradesh Urban Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation (APUFIDC) website.A Method to Monitor and Refocus Slum Development Programs.(2010): Social Protection and Poverty./973B0F57CA78D834C12576DB003BE255?. Mukhopadhyay (2009): Poverty in India Cities in the Poverty Era. Our Inclusive Ahmedabad (2010): Report of the Public Hearing on Habitat and Livelihood Displacements. Indian Statistical Institute.nic. U.org. Ahmedabad. Housing for Poor in India. 3-19. Social Policy and Development Paper 42. Delhi (ideas. A. Centre for Urban Equity. Shah (2010): Welfare Extension by Local State and Social Protection: Surat. UNRISD./Final%20Poverty%20Rep..in/opm_files/.nipfp.gov.References Adusumuli. S. Mahadevia.html) Hasan. D.in/nurmudweb/toolkit/modified_guidelines. (practicalaction. Working Paper 11.in/JNNURM-releases/JnNURM%20releases-BSUP..P. Environment and Urbanization. And A.htm) Chandrasekhar. Satherthwaite (2005): “How to Meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in Urban Areas”. (www. and Jerry Kalarickal (2007): Strategizing Slum Improvement in India . 41 (4). (2001): Regulatory Guidelines For Urban Upgrading: Hyderabad Experience. Our Inclusive Ahmedabad. CGG website (www. pp.org/shelter/. 39 . Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation.
pdf) National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy 2007. Social Policy and Politics (UNRISD Publication) Esser D. M. pp. (2002): “Urban Poor’s Access to Land and Basic Services: Rhetoric.Sivam. D. and Todd Moss (2005): “What’s wrong with the Millennium Development Goals?”. Habitat International Vol 25. V (2009): Right to housing: Context and trends in Contemporary Debates: Struggles for Homestead land in Andhra Pradesh”.org/2009/07/13/development-as-fiction-the-failure-ofthe-mdgs/) Clemens. Mahadevia. pp. accessed on 30 Novemebr 2010 (http://danielesser. CPRC publication. 30-31 August 2010. Habitat International 30. Government of India. Combating Poverty and Inequality: Structural Change. accessed on 30 Nov 2010 (http://indiacurrentaffairs. M (2006): Reforms in housing sector in India: impact on housing development and housing amenities”. MoHUPA. Centre for Global Development. 412-433 Mahadevia. Nagarlok. D. A. pp. New Delhi 40 . accessed on 30 Nov 2010 (http://www. 99-113 Mahadeva. (2010): ‘Shelter Security and Urban Social Protection – Findings and Policy Implications in India”. accessed on 1Dec 2010 (www. pp. Danielesser blogs. 66-85. (2009): Development as Fiction: The Failure of the MDGs.org/publications/details/shelter-security-and-urban-socialprotection) Tiwari. Reality and Dilemmas”. Centre for Urban Equity.cgdev. 33 (1).chronicpoverty. MoHUPA.org/files/3940_file_WWMGD. 229-253 Konduri. et el (2001): “An approach to improved housing delivery in large cities of less developed countries”. Chronic Poverty Research Centre.org/right-to-housing-context-and-trends-in-contemporary-debatesstruggle-for-homestead-land-in-andhra-pradesh-veeraiah-konduri/) Report of the Workshop on ‘Land Tenure Issues in Slum-free City Planning’. New Delhi Report of the Technical Group on the Estimation of Urban Housing Shortage. P (2001): Housing and development objectives in India”. 11th Five Year Plan 2007-2012. Governemnt of India. CEPT University (CUE Publication) UNRISD (2010). Habitat International 25.
MoHUPA (mhupa.gov.pdf) 41 . National Building Organisation.Report of the Committee on Slum Settlement . (2010).in/W_new/Slum_Report_NBO.
htm) be accessed at the MoHUPA Pradesh RGK website link and 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 More about RGK can be found at the Andhra (http://www. 12 . 1991. and Professor at the Faculty of Planning and Public Policy. MoHUPA.asp?cid=924&catid=1&typeid=25&subMenuId=0 General Comment 4.gov. UN Habitat Declarations.gov. CEPT University. accessed on 3 Dec 2010 (http://ww2.in Research Associate. Email: darshini@cept. FSI is the ratio of built-up area to the plot area.in/programs/upa/nsdp/vambay. Accessed on 30 Nov 2010. New Delhi It means that if the public authority wants a piece of land for some public purpose. Centre for Urban Equity. CEPT University. 17 March. Paragraphs 7 and 8.html) 11 ‘Sonia launches Rajiv Gruhakalpa scheme.Notes 1 Member-Secretary Centre for Urban Equity. Government of India. (http://www.cgg.ac. 2008-2009. Greater details on VAMBAY can (mhupa. How much of land area would be granted elsewhere would depend upon the formula worked out by the public authority. 2005. it can grant development rights over a piece of land elsewhere to the landowner.gov. Email: email@example.com/content.unhabitat.unhabitat. Sixth Session.org/declarations/) Report of the 11th Five Year Plan (2007-12) Working Group on Urban Housing with Focus on Slums.in/apportal/HomePageLinks/RajivGruhaKalpa.aponline.htm http://housing.hinduonnet.htm) Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation officials.in/schemes/RGK_Urban.com http://www. The Hindu.com/2005/03/17/stories/2005031714360500.
India: A Workshop Report. by Darshini Mahadevia. by Darshini Mahadevia. by Bijal Bhatt and Pooja Shah. Pavankumar Ankonapalli. Pooja Shah. WP 8 Livelihoods for the Urban Poor:A Case Study of UMEED Programme in Ahmedabad. Rutul Joshi and Rutool Sharma. Darshini Mahadevia and Pooja Shah. by the Rutul Joshi and Prashant Sanga. WP 3 Integrating the Urban Poor in Planning and Governance Systems. Darshini Mahadevia. Ahmedabad.N. by Darshini Mahadevia. WP 2 Approaches to the Lands for the Urban Poor. by Darshini Mahadevia and Rutul Joshi. December 2010 . Zhiyan Liu. WP 10 Tenure Security through External Agency Intervention – Case of Vasna. Ray. December 2009. Darshini Mahadevia. October 2010 WP 11 Welfare Extension by Local State and Social Protection: Surat. December 2009. April 2010. October 2010. WP 4 Land Reservations for the Urban Poor: The Case of Town Planning Schemes in Ahmedabad. by C. December 2009. Ahmedabad. Darshini Mahadevia. Xiuming Yuan. Ahmedabad. December 2009. WP 5 Housing Options and Mobility of Urban Migrants in India and China. Rutul Joshi and Rutool Sharma. September 2010. by Rajendra Joshi.List of CUE Working Papers WP 1 Subversive Urban Development in India: Implications on Planning Education. Keren Nazareth. Pooja Shah. WP 6 From Basic Service Delivery to Policy Advocacy – Community Mobilisation in Pravinnagar-Guptanagar. WP 9 Leaving Poor to Their Own Devices – Case of Amraiwadi. April 2010. India: A workshop Report. Rutool Sharma. Ahmedabad. Pooja Shah and Ankonapalli Pavan Kumar. WP 7 Mobilizing Women for Change – Case Study of Sanjaynagar. April 2010.
Government of India) CEPT University Kasturbhai Lalbhai Campus.Centre for Urban Equity (CUE) advocates a human-centered and equitable urban development paradigm. training and capacity building and data documentation and dissemination. Centre for Urban Equity (An NRC for Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation. The activities of CUE are research. Ahmedabad – 380009 . Government of India. Navrangpura. policy advocacy. The Centre is a National Resource Centre of Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation. University Road.